Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from:

·      Councillor Griffin, (Councillor Thornburrow attended as an Alternate)

·      Councillor Nestor,

·      Councillor Flaubert (Councillor Illingworth attended as an Alternate)

To follow.

The minutes of the meeting on 15^th October would be submitted to the next meeting for approval.

Outline / Hybrid application for the long-term vision for the Cambridge Science Park

Applicant: Trinity College

Members raised the comments/questions as listed below. Answers were supplied, and comments from Officers, but as this was a pre-application presentation, none of the answers or comments were binding on either the intended applicant or the local planning authority so consequently are not recorded in these minutes.

1.    Pathways for pedestrians and a neighbourhood feel would be important as currently the site was difficult to navigate with no wayfinding.

2.    Re-connecting watercourses would require those watercourses to work hard given issues with water scarcity and foul water drainage. Sustainable urban drainage would be critical.

3.    The designers would need to consider a possible future requirement to retrofit multi-storey car parks into cycle hubs. Would it be necessary to have so many roads in the new plans? Fewer, traffic-controlled roads would prioritise active travel.

4.    Community based plans should look providing facilities such as cafes, a nursery or facilities for teenagers, and the development should invite the community in.

5.    Cargo bike parking would be important.

6.    Developers could be supported to encourage good architecture that would work alongside the business agenda.

7.    Could spaces for artists and makers be considered to connect business and community and complement the science opportunities?

8.    The economy and looking to the future would be important in terms of planning sustainability. How successful would the site be economically?

9.    Where would the workers live? Would the developers invest in housing developments?

10.                  Multi-storey car parks would put pressure on local highways. Should encourage public transport use, along with cycling and walking.

11.                  Would the developer be proactive about advertising community use? Would they welcome the site being used in a similar way to the city centre, welcoming people on electric scooters, playing sports etc?

12.                  Could the developers reach out to other parts of the city? For example to provide accommodation for organisations who are struggling to find space?

13.                  Spaces could be used by the public to hire for events, and they would need to be the right kind of spaces to welcome all parts of the community, including those living nearby in areas of deprivation. Developers should encourage residents to feel that they can be part of the science park.

The Committee received an application for demolition of existing buildings and the erection of buildings for Use Class E(g)i (offices) and E(g)ii (research and development) with Class E(a) (retail) and E(b) (sale of food and drink) uses on the ground floor together with Public Garden, landscaping and associated infrastructure works.

The Planning Officer updated his report by referring to:

      i.         The amendment sheet.

Councillor Bradnam highlighted a typographical error in condition 24 of the report. ‘Project’ should be corrected to ‘protect’.

Richard Berry (Applicant’s Representative) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Bradnam proposed, and Councillor Smith seconded, an amendment to condition 10 to update the timeframe from 5 to 10 years for replacement of trees and shrubs.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

Councillor Porrer proposed, and Councillor Illingworth seconded, an amendment to condition 40 for the Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan (DCEMP) to take into account school access times and routes.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

Councillor Porrer proposed and Councillor Illingworth seconded an amendment to condition 20 to refer to the applicant being required to provide commercial water metering data on request.

This amendment was carried unanimously.

The Committee

Resolved (by 8 votes to 1) to approve application 25/00016/FUL subject to:

(a)  the planning conditions and informatives as set out in Section 28 of the planning officer’s report with delegated authority to carry through amendments to those conditions and informatives (including additional / revised conditions as appropriate and necessary) in consultation with Chair and Vice Chair of Committee prior to the issuing of planning permission. With the following updates to the planning conditions:

·      Updates to conditions 15, 16 and 31 as outlined in the amendment sheet.

·      Update to condition 24 to change the word ‘project’ to ‘protect’.

·      Updates to the following conditions as agreed by Members at Committee:

                                     i.     Update to condition 10 – timeframe for re-planting;

                                    ii.     Update to condition 40 – take account of school access times and routes in the DCEMP;

                                  iii.     Update to condition 20 – provision of commercial water metering data.

(b) the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with delegated authority to officers to negotiate, settle and complete such an Agreement as referenced in the Heads of Terms within this report including any other planning obligations considered appropriate and necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; and

(c) a reasoned conclusion of the significant effects of the development on the environment and the carrying out of the appropriate notifications under regs. 29 and 30 in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017, delegated to officers.

Update report.

Planning application 25/02022/FUL returned to Committee to approve one additional planning condition. The adding of the additional condition could not be dealt with under the delegation given to officers as part of the 20 August 2025 JDMC Committee resolution to approve the application.

The Committee

Resolved (unanimously) to approve in addition to the planning conditions for planning application 25/02022/FUL previously approved by JDMC on 20 August 2025, the additional ‘Grampian style’ planning condition relating to foul water (as detailed at number 23 of the planning conditions listed in Section 4 of the officer’s report), with delegated authority to officers to carry through amendments to those conditions (including additional/revised conditions as appropriate and necessary) prior to the issuing of the planning permission.